Conclusion of “Mnemotechny in Toronto”

Ephemeral toponyms, streetscape illegibility, and gendering the territories of condo development

Part 6 of 6 in
Mnemotechny in Toronto.
Figure 10. Pending condo development at 50 Wellesley Street East, August 2008, with visible remnants of a just-demolished, four-storey brick office building. As of 2015, this development is not yet built. Branded both as “Plaza” and “50 Wellesley East”, its developers still have a positive opportunity to inscribe the “Plaza” (or “Plaza at 50 Wellesley”) name permanently to the tower and to enhance legibility of the streetscape along Wellesley. Owing to its extended presence for at least four seven years, the “Plaza” name serves already as an effective, if ephemeral, toponym. [Idlewild]

Figure 10. Pending condo development at 50 Wellesley Street East, August 2008, with visible remnants of a just-demolished, four-storey brick office building. As of 2012 2015, this development is not yet built. Branded both as “Plaza” and “50 Wellesley East”, its developers still have a positive opportunity to inscribe the “Plaza” (or “Plaza at 50 Wellesley”) name permanently to the tower and to enhance legibility of the streetscape along Wellesley. Owing to its extended presence for at least four seven years, the “Plaza” name serves already as an effective, if ephemeral, toponym. [Idlewild]


This is the conclusion of a six-part series, posted from June 6th to 11th, on the relationships between temporary condo names and their impact on public space wayfinding and legibility. Catch up with the entire series.


It is challenging to confront the problematics of ephemeral condo toponymies for a few reasons.

First, the case for permanent toponymies is unlikely to register with developers[5]. That is: the inscription of permanent names is probably not something to have crossed their minds before. Their principal concern is to produce space and to profit efficiently from an increased exchange value of real estate before divesting their stake in that locality. This modus operandi produces new problems for a commons which should facilitate a sense of place and belonging for citizens who navigate the streetscape for their sundry activities. Making the streetscape more illegible works against this. Second, navigating the deeply contested politics of neoliberalism, anti-regulation, and its direct impact on urban geographies (particularly in global cities) is a touchy one, with repeated chasms of disagreement between practitioners and citizen-stakeholders. Unsurprisingly, those with the biggest toys — i.e., capital — tend to have an upper hand. Practitioners wield the capital instruments to, within reason, will whatever project into existence as they see fits their ends.

As grim as this may seem to the participatory citizen, this is not necessarily a fait accompli. The buying habits of real estate consumers change with respect to generational and macroeconomic currents. Demands by those consumers can in part shape how future development proceeds. Meanwhile, facilitating a civic criticism in Toronto to challenge under-regulated condo development or BIA overreach could cultivate a mature, more organized stand by participatory citizens who are invested to challenge a doctrine of market-based policy development, sold to the public as wholly benign, even benevolent. That said, this citizen-based counterbalance must stay aware, particularly following Toronto’s 2010 municipal election, that the best tool of agency for engaging private development is at the regulatory level; through the active presence of citizen groups at committee and council meetings (where zoning variances begin their public negotiation); through the election of capable, vetted advocates at city council and provincial legislature; and through steady community organizing.

The most salient challenge, however, is when masculine developers maintain how they are best disposed to know how to connect with feminine buyers when producing new real estate space. Given gendered schisms between seller and buyer, problems emerge when developments generate hostile conditions for citizens who are women — where empowering women to cultivate a sense of place and belonging with their surroundings is discouraged when developers and other private consortiums transform urban streetscapes into a progressively inscrutable commons. This strike against a healthy mnemotechny is antithetical to realizing the vibrant, utopian Torontos rendered lavishly in the branding of condo toponymies surrounding construction sites. Those fictive Torontos evaporate once condo doors open and marketing toponymies get removed, leaving behind a dystopian cinder of how a city could and should be. An illegible commons thwarts one from engaging with her city or embracing it with a zeal of familiarity befitting of a vibrant home city.


References

Bondi, Liz. 1992. Gender symbols and urban landscapes. Progress in Human Geography, 16(2): 157–70.
Boyle, Theresa. 2005. King Street comes of age: factories turned into trendy suites. Toronto Star, 14 May: p. P1.
Carmona, Matthew, Tiesdell, Steve, Heath, Tim, and Oc, Taner. 2010. Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design, 2nd ed. Oxford: Architectural Press (Elsevier).
Castells, Manuel. 2009. The information age: economy, society, and culture, 2nd ed. West Sussex (UK): Wiley-Blackwell.
Chenier, Elise. 2004. Rethinking class in the lesbian bar culture: living the gay life in Toronto, 1955–1965. Left History, 9(2): 85–118.
Coluccia, Emanuele, Iosue, Giorgia, and Brandimonte, Maria Antonella. 2007. The relationship between map drawing and spatial orientation abilities: a study of gender differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(2): 135–44.
Cordileone, Elvira. 2002. Single women buying up condos. Toronto Star, 16 February: p. 1.
——————————. 2007. Young, single and looking for a home: single women account for 20 per cent of city’s real estate. Toronto Star, 19 April: p. S3.
Cornell, Edward H., Heth, C. Donald, and Broda, Lorri S. 1989. Children’s wayfinding: response to instructions to use environmental landmarks. Developmental Psychology, 25(5): 755–64.
Cowen, Deborah, Lehrer, Ute, and Winkler, Andrea. 2005. The secret lives of toilets: a public discourse on ‘private’ space in the city. In McBride, Jason and Wilcox, Alana (Eds.), uTOpia: towards a new Toronto, 194–203. Toronto: Coach House Books.
Crinson, Mark and Tyrer, Paul. 2005. Clocking off in Ancoats: time and and remembrance in the post-industrial city. In Crinson, Mark (Ed.), Urban memory: history and amnesia in the modern city, 58–71. Oxon (UK): Routledge.
Davies, Clare and Pederson, Eric. 2001. Grid patterns and cultural expectations in urban wayfinding. In D.R. Montello (Ed.), Conference on Spatial Information Theory 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (2205): 400–14.
Dill, Paula M. and Bedford, Paul J. 2002. Regeneration in the Kings: directions and emerging trends. Toronto: City of Toronto Urban Development Services, City Planning Division.
Doan, Petra and Higgins, Harrison. 2009. Cognitive dimensions of way-finding: the implications of habitus, safety, and gender dissonance among gay and lesbian populations. Environment and Planning A, 41: 1745–62.
Ehrenfeucht, Renia and Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia. 2007. Constructing the sidewalks: municipal government and the production of public space in Los Angeles, California, 1880–1920. Journal of Historical Geography, 33: 104–24.
Ewald, Jennifer D. 2010. ‘Do you know where X is?’: direction-giving and male-female direction-givers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 2549–61.
Feagin, Joe R. and Parker, Robert. 1990. Building American cities: the urban real estate game, 2nd ed. Washington: Beard Books/Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Fincher, Ruth. 2004. Gender and life course in the narratives of Melbourne’s high-rise housing developers. Australian Geographical Studies, 42(3) November: 325–38.
Gottdiener, Mark. 2000. New forms of consumption: consumers, culture, and commodification. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Greer, Shelly Sanders. 2007. A woman’s point of view: ‘the last report had 20 per cent of sales attributed to females… our purchasing power is increasing’. Toronto Star, 24 March: p. R1.
Hall, Edward T. 1959. The silent language. New York: Anchor Books.
Hanes, Tracey. 2010. Close to a woman’s heart: improved security in the garage and elevators, better lighting in bathrooms, extra-long bathtubs for a long, luxurious soak. Toronto Star, 23 October: p. H1.
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science (New Series), 162(3859): 1243–8.
Hayden, Dolores. 1997. The power of place: urban landscapes as public history. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hough, Michael. 1990. Out of place: restoring identity to the regional landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Kaufman, Joanne. 2011. Named with you in mind: using a building’s name as bait for buyers. The New York Times, 25 December: p. RE1.
Kern, Leslie. 2005. In place and at home in the city: connecting privilege, safety and belonging for women in Toronto. Gender, Place and Culture, 12(3): 357–77.
——————————. 2007. Reshaping the boundaries between public and private life: gender, condominium development, and the neoliberalization of urban living. Urban Geography, 28(7): 657–81.
——————————. 2010a. Gendering reurbanisation: women and new-build gentrification of Toronto. Population, Space and Place, 16: 363–79.
——————————. 2010b. Selling the ‘scary city’: gendering freedom, fear, and condominium development in the neoliberal city. Social & Cultural Geography, 11(3): 209–30.
Kittler, Friedrich A. 1996. The city is a medium. New Literary History, 27(4): 717–29. Knowles, Deborah. 2009. Claiming the streets: Feminist implications of psychogeography as a business research method. Electronic Journal of Business Methods, 7(1): 47–54.
Koskela, Hille. 1997. ‘Bold Walk and Breakings’: women’s spatial confidence versus fear of violence. Gender, Place and Culture, 4(3): 301–19.
Lawton, Carol A. 2001. Gender and regional differences in spatial referents used in direction giving. Sex Roles, 44(5/6): 321–37.
Low, Setha. 2006. How private interests take over public space: zoning, taxes, and incorporation of gated communities. In Low, Setha and Smith, Neil (eds.), The politics of public space, 81–103. New York: Routledge.
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Mitchell, Don and Staeheli. 2006. Clean and safe? Property redevelopment, public space, and homelessness in downtown San Diego. In Low, Setha and Smith, Neil (eds.), The politics of public space, 143–75. New York: Routledge.
Montello, Daniel R., Lovelace, Kristin L., Golledge, Reginald G., and Self, Carole M. 2004. Sex-related differences and similarities in geographic and environmental spatial abilities. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(3): 515–34.
Nas, Peter J.M. 1998. Introduction: congealed time, compressed place; roots and branches of urban symbolic ecology. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(4): 545–9.
Nava, Mica. 1996. Modernity’s disavowal: women, city and the department store. In Nava, Mica and O’Shea, Alan (Eds.), Modern times: reflections on a century of English modernity, 38–76. London: Routledge.
Peck, Jamie and Tickell, Adam. 2002. Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3): 380–404.
Prashad, Sharda. 2004. Young and rentless: low interest rates, easy mortgage payments are prompting the unattached to invest in real estate. Toronto Star, 4 September: p. P1.
Rose-Redwood, Reuben. 2008. From number to name: symbolic capital, places of memory and
the politics of street naming in New York City. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(4): 431–52.
——————————. 2009. Indexing the great ledger of the community: urban house numbering, city directories, and the production of spatial legibility. In Berg, Lawrence D. and Vuolteenaho, Jani (Eds.), Critical toponymies: the contested politics of place naming, 199–225. Surrey (UK): Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Rose-Redwood, Reuben, Alderman, Derek, and Azaryahu, Maoz. 2010. Geographies of toponymic inscription: new direction in critical place-name studies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(4): 453–70.
Ruppert, Evelyn S. 2006. Rights to public space: regulations reconfigurations of liberty. Urban Geography, 27(3): 271–92.
Saltsman, Peter. 2010. Architects on building a better Toronto. Torontoist, October 5. Retrieved 5 February 2012 from [http://torontoist.com/2010/10/universities_as_city_builders_architects_as_pundits/].
Schmitz, Sigrid. 1997. Gender-related strategies in environmental development: effects of anxiety on wayfinding in and representation of a three-dimensional maze. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(3): 215–28.
Self, Carole M. and Golledge, Reginald G. 1994. Sex-related differences in spatial ability: what every geography educator should know. Journal of Geography, 93(5): 234–43.
Sharpe, Robert J. and McMahon, Patricia I. 2007. The Persons Case: the origins and legacy of the fight for legal personhood. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Spelt, Jacob. 1984. Toronto: the evolution of a landscape. Journal of Geography, 38(5) September/October: 250–5.
Tan, Peter K.W. 2009. Building names in Singapore: multilingualism of a different kind. Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Onomastic Sciences, 929–42.
Tossell, Ivor. 2006. Home suite home: as the condo boom continues, developers are starting to consider a new target market — families. The Globe and Mail, 18 March: p. M1.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Space and place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
——————————. 1979. Space and place: humanistic perspective. In Gale, S. and Olson, G. (Eds.), Philosophy in Geography, 387–427. Dordrecht (West Germany): D. Riedel.
Whitzman, Carolyn. 2007. Stuck at the front door: gender, fear of crime and the challenge of creating safer space. Environment and Planning A, 39: 2715–32.
Williams, Allison. 1998. Therapeutic landscapes in holistic medicine. Social Sciences & Medicine, 46(9): 1193–1203.

Footnotes

[5] On 12 August 2011, from a conversation with a highly involved real estate broker in Toronto’s condo market (named “Robin” to protect their identity), this question was presented. Robin’s response, paraphrased, was they doubted developers engaged wilfully in ephemeral condo toponymies for liability reasons (n.b., the original hypothesis before beginning this research). Rather, it’s that developers probably had never contemplated this problematic before.


This unpublished manuscript was drafted in 2012, and edited for six-part serialization in 2016. It was reviewed by Nik Luka at the School of Urban Planning at McGill University. Prepared originally for Luka’s reading course (URBP607), winter 2012, at McGill University.

Series Navigation<< Discussion on “Mnemotechny in Toronto”
Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: